homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » The Death of Darwinism (Page 42)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  39  40  41  42 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: The Death of Darwinism
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm having a hard time thinking somebody flipped a coin. There must be something neutrinos have in common with protons, photons, neutrons, electrons, etc. (things that are indisputably "matter") that anti-neutrinos do not?

Photons aren't "matter". A photon is also an antiphoton, so it doesn't get to play for either team. When we talk about matter, we mean the fermions.

But the protons and neutrons thing is interesting. In the current Standard Model, quarks and leptons don't couple. That means that there's no mechanism to connect the matter-ness of electrons and neutrinos with the matter-ness of up and down quarks, and so in the current SM, we make the arbitrary assertion that electrons are "matter" like up and down quarks (and hence protons and neutrons).

In the unified theory that everyone thinks must exist, leptons and quarks are combined in an irreducible representation of the symmetry group of the unified theory (SU(5) is the smallest possible such symmetry group, although I think the non-observation of proton decay has pretty much ruled out all the SU(5) possibilities.) This combination places quarks and leptons in the same representation, and so ties the matter-ness of quarks and leptons together.

Posts: 4900 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
LC--

Thanks.


Alan--

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It does rather depend on what you mean by "matter". Does it, for example, include energy that can transform into particles?

That's what I was thinking of. In that view, aren't matter and energy flip sides of each other? Sort of like energy is matter dancing very fast, and matter is energy meditating? (Don't laugh too hard, please! [Biased] I've been using that comparison for a long time, and it makes sense to me.)

Thanks.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18177 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
That's what I was thinking of. In that view, aren't matter and energy flip sides of each other? Sort of like energy is matter dancing very fast, and matter is energy meditating?

When photons undergo pair production (which they do), they produce a particle and its antiparticle at the same time. So matter-ness is conserved: you start with a photon (no matter) and end with an electron and a positron, say (no net matter - a particle and its antiparticle).

In order to generate a matter-filled universe from a big bang, you need a mechanism that produces matter from energy without producing antimatter at the same time.

Or alternatively, you make equal amounts of matter and antimatter, and then have a mechanism to sweep all the matter over in one direction, and all the antimatter in the other direction, and leave a big gap in the middle.

The former is easier to imagine than the latter.

Posts: 4900 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So why does 'matter' predominate? [Biased]

I imagine in me complete ignorance that there was an imbalance in matter-antimatter creation, but to what degree and why how can one know?

Any road up, I came here to muse on a conversation outside the public toilets at Wells-next-the-Sea on Saturday, in shadow of the terribly moving memorial to the 11 men drowned in the 1880 Eliza Adams lifeboat disaster, leaving 10 widows and 27 orphans, unmemorialized, in a small town.

I was photographing Solanum nigrum (in the OPPOSITE direction to the front of the toilets ...), across the road from the tide monitoring station where the iridescent starlings roost, which is germane. A woman commented on the colours which she which 'you don't usually notice'. I repressed the impulse to hold forth on them not being due to pigmentation but to iridescence. Then I realised I couldn't explain the latter more deeply without opening up the Pandora's box of interference, phase shifting, thin-film interference and diffraction. I imagine in feathers it's thin-film interference. Or diffraction. Or both.

An older chap like me came out the toilet and stood by me as I crouched by the flowers, 'A nightshade.' I said. He launched in to a little homily about looking at a butterfly 'the other day' and saying that it didn't have to be SO beautiful.

I didn't get his agenda and said it was due to competition. He ignored me and said that it was excessively beautiful because it had a designer, 'God' and walked away as I said 'Maybe both'.

What a typically depressing interaction.

Particularly as I don't subscribe to ID in the slightest degree apart from in the original creation of this universe.

In which there was a bias toward matter.

[ 23. October 2017, 08:56: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17009 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
'strewth! Sub-cellular, 100 nm, melanosome-keratin layers. The blind watchmaker strikes again!

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17009 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
balaam

Making an ass of myself
# 4543

 - Posted      Profile for balaam   Author's homepage   Email balaam   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's 43 years since university so I have forgotten most of it, but if I remember correctly it would not need that great an imbalance between matter and anti-matter, then it snowballed.

I am sure someone who is more up to date in their Astro-physics will now correct me.

--------------------
Fearfully and wonderfully mad
Love the dinner, hate the din.
ن
blog

Posts: 8832 | From: Somewhere else | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So why does 'matter' predominate? [Biased]

A less matter-centric view might be that matter doesn't predominate, empty space does. Non-matter, not matter nor anti-matter.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10505 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Matter predominates because, like the woman that John Lennon wants, wants so bad it's driving him mad, it's so heavy.

--------------------
“Religion doesn't fuck up people, people fuck up religion.”—lilBuddha

Posts: 63203 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Like life and death, matter and energy are actually the same thing. You just have to understand that our ideas of life and death, and matter and energy are products of our languages and thus metaphors at best. Symbolic representations of underlying reality.

Plato told us thousands of years ago that we see shadows of reality reflected on the walls of the cave. We don't see actual reality. So when you think matter versus energy you're doing what I do:thinking in human terms. More easily (for me) consider 3 dimensions: then try to think of a 4th at right angles to those. Warps the mind, but it's on the track toward understanding. Similar also is particle-wave: light is both and neither. Sometimes it's useful to think of as one or the other, but these are merely metaphors not really approaching what it truly is. Because we haven't a concept for it.

Posts: 11183 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
matter and energy are actually the same thing.

Well, yes. And, no. In certain circumstances matter and energy can exchange between each other - energy becoming matter, and matter becoming energy. But, that doesn't make them the same.

At a very (with lots of other very's) early time in the universe the initial energy of the universe cooled sufficiently for it to transform into "matter" and "anti-matter" (both of which really are different forms of matter). There was a very (with lots of other very's) slight bias towards matter in that process, so that as that matter and anti-matter annihilated to produce photons (yet another form of matter) there was a little bit of matter left over, just enough to form stars and planets and galaxies .... and people like us to wonder about it all.

The problem is that we don't know why there was that little bit of extra matter formed. We invoke "symmetry breaking", something where the properties of matter and anti-matter are very slightly asymmetric - mass, magnetic moments ... something. Though, we've yet to find any such asymmetry - within the last few days results have been published measuring the magnetic moment of anti-protons, identical to that of protons to 19 decimal places.

--------------------
All I want for Christmas is EU

Posts: 32191 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Alan--

[Biased] Perhaps, when matter and anti-matter love each other very, very much...? [Biased]

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18177 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks Alan. That's the piece of the jigsaw. Symmetry breaking. You've brought it in from the Oort Cloud for me. Can we quantify the tilt toward ordinary matter in baryogenesis?

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17009 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And ooh, Alan, are the monopole, flatness and horizon problems real?

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17009 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  39  40  41  42 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools